Moving from CDs to hi-res downloads

Discussion in 'Audio Hardware' started by Vincent3, Oct 28, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Vincent3

    Vincent3 Forum Resident Thread Starter

    Sorry, the above is an incomplete reply that I thought I didn't post.
     
  2. Grant

    Grant Life is a rock, but the radio rolled me!

    I still don't have a problem with 44.1. I believe the secret is in the higher bit-depth. But, yeah, anything higher is an improvement over redbook, although I create redbook versions for my everyday listening and preserve the hi-rez versions for when i'm in the mood. I spent literally months on it, but i've got my MBIT+ dithering tweaked to where it's really close to the 24-bit version.

    For all of you dudes who say they can't hear the difference, you're lucky because you'll save a lot of money. For those of us who can, life is a bit tougher.
     
  3. Grant

    Grant Life is a rock, but the radio rolled me!

    Unless one knows the history of how something was recorded and mastered, there's no way to know for sure if something was just upsampled. I don't doubt it's happened, but it doesn't occur with the the frequency that some people are implying it is. As for original digital recordings, again, we can't be quite sure what the deal may be.
     
  4. Grant

    Grant Life is a rock, but the radio rolled me!

    I've only heard one hi-rez album that sounds wonky: "Foreigner 4". My guess is that they gave us a flat transfer of the tape as hi-rez, and it really needs help. So, in this case, one can do their own EQ, or take one of the LP or CD masterings.
     
  5. Grant

    Grant Life is a rock, but the radio rolled me!

    The music on every CD on the planet has gone through a computer.
     
  6. missan

    missan Forum Resident

    Location:
    Stockholm
     
  7. Pneumonic

    Pneumonic Member

    Location:
    Toronto Canada
    I buy hi-res due to the possibility that it is better mastered than its redbook counterpoint. If the hi-res version is "better" it matters not to me why; just that it is.
     
    Grant and Atmospheric like this.
  8. thrivingonariff

    thrivingonariff Forum Resident

    Location:
    US
    An excerpt from the link above:
    When does 24 bit matter?
    Professionals use 24 bit samples in recording and production [14] for headroom, noise floor, and convenience reasons.

    16 bits is enough to span the real hearing range with room to spare. It does not span the entire possible signal range of audio equipment. The primary reason to use 24 bits when recording is to prevent mistakes; rather than being careful to center 16 bit recording-- risking clipping if you guess too high and adding noise if you guess too low-- 24 bits allows an operator to set an approximate level and not worry too much about it. Missing the optimal gain setting by a few bits has no consequences, and effects that dynamically compress the recorded range have a deep floor to work with.

    An engineer also requires more than 16 bits during mixing and mastering. Modern work flows may involve literally thousands of effects and operations. The quantization noise and noise floor of a 16 bit sample may be undetectable during playback, but multiplying that noise by a few thousand times eventually becomes noticeable. 24 bits keeps the accumulated noise at a very low level. Once the music is ready to distribute, there's no reason to keep more than 16 bits.
     
  9. missan

    missan Forum Resident

    Location:
    Stockholm


    Yes I see it this way. I buy only well recorded classical opera CDs and they are usually tremendously good. Nothing to complain about. Just bought a CD of Beethoven´s Fidelio recorded in -64, fantastic.
     
  10. Atmospheric

    Atmospheric Forum Resident

    Location:
    Eugene
    It sounds like you've decided that hi-res isn't for you. You probably shouldn't buy any. Please do stop short of making my personal buying decisions for me. Can we agree on that much? Thank-you.
     
    Grant likes this.
  11. Rolltide

    Rolltide Forum Resident

    Location:
    Vallejo, CA
    Fortunately, that's not true at all. As these are computer files, there's plenty of software that can analyze them. You can measure the wave form and the dynamic range - if the results are 100% identical to those of a 44/16 file, as they often are, one can be quite sure it's the same 44/16 file that has been upsamped. There have been cases where files passed off as 96/24 were found to have been sourced from 128K MP3s.

    But the other side of the coin is these techniques can be used to qualify the cases where the high rez files are indeed legit, so don't take the above as some kind of "debunking the high rez myth". It's just a tricky proposition to know if there's actual value or not. Some consumers might assume their high rez downloads are "usually better", I'd prefer a paper trail before I click buy myself.
     
  12. thrivingonariff

    thrivingonariff Forum Resident

    Location:
    US
    That's a rather illogical interpretation of my post, especially given the context of this thread, where the OP asked "If we can do better than 16/44.1, how high is the ceiling? For example, should I pay more for 24/192 than for 24/96?".

    I was quoting the recommendation of a prominent figure in the industry who is using science—and, yes, I recognize that one person's take on the "science" may be different from another person's, but still—as the basis for his judgements and recommendations. What exactly is your objection to that? And are you implying that any statements that take a definite position on the topic are, regardless of the data and reasoning behind those statements, inappropriate here? If not, then what is the rationale for your objection?

    As for your (reasonable but nonetheless incorrect) inference that I've decided that hi-res isn't for me, actually I've not come to that conclusion. But some things I've read over the years (including the article that I quoted and linked to earlier in this thread) have made me skeptical of the claims made regarding the benefits of hi-res (as well as the claims made regarding audiophile equipment and adjustments generally, but that's another story). I share the interest in and enthusiasm for the quest for better audio—and have for @35 years—but at the same time, I want to know, to the extent that they can be known at any given point in time, the facts/science.
     
  13. Atmospheric

    Atmospheric Forum Resident

    Location:
    Eugene
    Fair enough. I appreciate you clarifying your position. I apologize for any misunderstanding.

    Yes, "science" generally claims that there is no reason whatsoever that 16/44.1 shouldn't be sufficient to "accurately reproduce" any audio signal. My opinion is that science often doesn't know what it doesn't know until such time as they realize that they never knew it at all. In my view, true adherents to the scientific method always (!) leave some wiggle room for newer and better information to inform their current understanding of things.

    To answer the OP's question, I believe (IMO) that you shouldn't pay for something better if you cannot appreciate the difference in quality.

    I do most of my critical listening on a Digital Audio Workstation (DAW). I can hear the difference in some hi-res offerings and I am happy to pay for the difference. I understand if others feel differently. What I don't understand is why "redbook über alles" adherents care if others spend their money on hi-res?
     
    Grant likes this.
  14. Ham Sandwich

    Ham Sandwich Senior Member

    Location:
    Sherwood, OR, USA
    He's a prominent figure in his own mind. He is not a prominent figure in the audio industry. His comments and thoughts about audio gear or how to listen to music means zilch. He's a software developer. Not an audio equipment developer or audio engineer.

    There's already a long thread here about his views. Enjoy.
    http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/24-192-music-downloads-and-why-they-make-no-sense.278967/
     
    Grant likes this.
  15. gloomrider

    gloomrider Well-Known Member

    Location:
    Hollywood, CA, USA
    I give "Monty" Montgomery a good deal of credit for pretty much single-handedly dispelling the myth that an analog waveform reconstructed from a digital source contains "stair steps". It does not.

    But, while science explains that
    1. The only benefit of increased sample rate is a wider bandpass
    2. The only benefit of higher bit depth is wider dynamic range

    ...in practice, it's more complicated than that. And what's conspicuously absent from Monty's presentations is any deep dive into ADC and DAC technologies including things like delta-sigma modulation and digital filters. I would like to see Monty spend some quality time with someone like Ted Smith.
     
    Grant likes this.
  16. thrivingonariff

    thrivingonariff Forum Resident

    Location:
    US
    Atmospheric, no problem. I agree with your points.
     
    Grant and Atmospheric like this.
  17. rl1856

    rl1856 Forum Resident

    Location:
    SC
    The problem is that there is a tangible benefit to sampling rates above 16/44.

    Tests performed by the US Army in the early 1950's, CalTech in the 90's and Sweedish researchers about 10yrs ago all reached the same conclusion: While we do not "hear" content above 20khz, our auditory mechanisms do respond to ultra sonic conent. "Hearing" was defined as the subject acknowledging the presence of content. The subjects did not acknowledge ultrasonic content when it was mixed in with normal content. but they did acknowledge that "something" had changed in the content when the ultrasonic components were removed. They responded to the abscense of the ultrasonic content. The researchers theorised that ultrasonic content excites our auditory mechanism, resulting in signals sent to the brain. We do not consciously acknwoledge these signals as "sound" but we are aware of the content on a subconscious level.

    Regarding digital conversion- it has been proven that brass and some string instruments produce overtones that are ultrasonic in frequency and are part of the sonic spectrum produced by the instrument. Straight 16/44 conversion introduces a brick wall filter that essentially bounces these harmonics back into the audible spectrum, but out of phase with the original content, creating phase distortion and other anomalies. Picture undisturbed water in a pool, then drop a rock into the middle. Ripples will extend out in concentric circles from the point of impact until they come into contact with the boundries of the pool, then are reflected back to their origin. However, the reflection is 180' out of phase with the original ripple, which disturbs the shape of the ripples still eminating from the point of impact.

    24/96 - 24/192 - 24/384- DSD are all attempts to move the ultimate sampling limit out of the range of what is perceptable by human hearing. The biggest audible difference comes from the improvement to 24/96 sampling, which largely removes the sampling rate from the range of sounds produced by instrumental harmonic overtones.

    IMHO there is a reason to aquire Hi-Res files. On the other hand, the file should be natively Hi-Res, otherwise you are wasting your money.

    The UK magazine Hi Fi News and Record Review publishes FR graphs for hi-rez recordings. It is astonishing how many discs sold as hi-rez are in fact just upsampled from 16/44. There are also many complaints that files sold by Chesky/ HD Tracks are not actually Hi-Rez. The company principals have issued vague denials that essentially blame media companies for allegedly supplying less than Hi-Rez files to them.

    As always, one must be careful.
     
    progrocker, Vincent3 and Rolltide like this.
  18. Rolltide

    Rolltide Forum Resident

    Location:
    Vallejo, CA
    Fascinating that HDTracks doesn't feel any need to confirm that the product they're selling is legit (which can be done trivially), and presumably when they "discover" a label provides them with upsampled files they continue doing business with them.

    All the more reason to be skeptical/frustrated by this segment of the audio market.
     
  19. Atmospheric

    Atmospheric Forum Resident

    Location:
    Eugene
    This is merely conjecture on my part, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that ultrasonic information might function as spatial cues for the brain and that it might be present in greater quantities in true hi-res content. You don't "hear" it the sense you could identify a pitch, but your brain constantly compares the audio from your left ear with the audio from your right ear. The bones in our head block higher frequencies. So alignment of the head with any sound source creates spatial cues. The rolloff difference perceived between one ear and the other is a big part of how our brains perceive directionality in sound. This can even be manipulated with short delays (Haas effect). I worked at Hughes Aircraft when SRS was being developed. I believe that is how they enhanced directionality, even from mono sources.

    If any of this is true, the scientific reasoning for 16/44.1 being all you ever need completely and utterly falls apart, due primarily to flawed assumptions (the audible spectrum is all you ever need to reproduce) and measuring equipment limitations. I believe that better equipment and an improved understanding of psycho acoustics will eventually prove that higher res material does indeed sound different. Good or bad is in the eye of the beholder.
     
    Grant likes this.
  20. thrivingonariff

    thrivingonariff Forum Resident

    Location:
    US
    I'm not going to debate what constitutes "prominent"; that may not have been the best choice of words. He is someone with a significant background in digital audio, the topic under discussion here. So your assertion that he is simply a "software developer" is quite inaccurate (conveniently), and if that false characterization of him is the basis (as it appears to be) for your assertion that "His comments and thoughts about audio gear or how to listen to music means zilch" then that assertion is at the very least flawed.

    Everyone's entitled to their own opinion, but I notice that you don't actually attempt to refute anything he said in the article that I cited. Not that you're required to do that, and I realize that the previous thread that you referred to may have exhausted your interest in the topic. But anyone who objectively compares the substance of your post here with that of the article that I cited will, I think, understand why I would find his article much more persuasive than your post.
     
  21. Ham Sandwich

    Ham Sandwich Senior Member

    Location:
    Sherwood, OR, USA
    The discussion about Monty and his views was covered in the other thread. I'm not going to rehash it here. It would only derail this thread.

    For background and info about how to store and process digital audio and digital media on a computer Monty is a go to guy. He's a software developer. For info about designing audio gear and deciding what actually sounds good or better he has presented no qualifications. I too would like to have Monty spend some quality time with someone in the audio industry like Ted Smith (from PS Audio). Monty might get exposed to something new if he has an open mind.

    The digital audio that reaches our ears is more than just math and theory. Pure math and theory tends to make audio that does not sound so good.

    Beyond the math and theory all a consumer can do is attempt to understand digital audio as best they can and listen. Listening to the result is what matters. Sometimes listening will indicate that high-res sounds better than CD-res. Why? That's the $64,000 question. Math and theory and Monty won't answer that question fully. There's more going on that needs to be explored and considered.

    Which is why the best answer as an audiophile as to whether high-res is worth it is to listen to good good gear and decide for yourself.
     
  22. Grant

    Grant Life is a rock, but the radio rolled me!

    Hmmm...you're going to give me money to do your grocery shopping for you? Good. I'll buy what I think is good for you. I'll buy you what I think you need to eat. Dude, want me to grab a pizza for you, me, and the guys for a listening party? Cool! I'l order a cheese pizza from Dominoes because it's just pizza. You don't need those extra toppings. There's a cool mom & pop pizza joint right across from it, but we don't need that. Too expensive. Its all the same, anyway. I'm on allergy meds. I can't taste the difference.


    So, did you do your own testing and come to your own conclusion, or do you buy into what he says just because he says he has authority?
     
    Last edited: Oct 30, 2014
  23. Grant

    Grant Life is a rock, but the radio rolled me!


    Many people get caught in the trap of relying on cheap computer software to tell them what they think they know about how something was mastered.
     
  24. tim185

    tim185 Forum Resident

    Location:
    Australia
    I think the biggest issue, as has been eluded to, is that they need to be more transparent on what this files are sourced from.
    ...And is you dont know, you need to find out.
    You should know, if your going to be selling them!
     
    Rolltide likes this.
  25. Rolltide

    Rolltide Forum Resident

    Location:
    Vallejo, CA
    Nah. Analyzing a digital music file isn't rocket science by any stretch, software doesn't need to be expensive to handle it. And it's not really a matter of "how something was mastered", it's if it even contains any sonic information beyond a 44/16 file or if they're just selling you empty space. It's surprisingly common to discover the 96/24 to be more compressed then the 44/16.

    At any rate, the end consumer shouldn't have to worry about taking measurements of the high-rez files they purchase. As others have agreed, honest and accurate lineage information should be provided, and people can decide if they want to purchase something that's been upsampled vs. sourced from masters.
     
    Atmospheric likes this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine